The Battle of Washington

[Prime Time]

Simon Bruty/Sports Illustrated/The MMQB

The Battle of Washington
Daniel Snyder says it honors the heritage of Native Americans; critics consider it nothing less than a racist slur. We set out to gauge the real sentiment regarding the name ‘Redskins’ among Native American leaders and in grass-roots tribal communities around the country. The short answer: It’s complicated
By Jenny Vrentas/With special reporting by Emily Kaplan
------------------------------
*It's 6 pages long if you care to read the whole thing here at this link*
----------------------------------
Highlights:

“We’re either seen as this extreme noble savage,” Miles says, “or this extreme poverty case that needs help.” Indeed, these are the two visages often evoked and juxtaposed in discussions about the Washington team name. The push for a change in the name is pitted against Native Americans’ less-abstract needs—job creation, health care, land rights. But in many Native American communities, and to many Native American leaders, the mascot issue is about more than a football team.

What we did not find: the “overwhelming majority” that Snyder and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell have claimed support the name “Redskins.”

John Warren, Chairman of the Pokagon Band of the Potawatomi, in Michigan and Indiana: “To me, I look at it as a part of an old, institutionalized racism. I don’t understand why some athletes, especially the ones of color, don’t say something. The ‘R’ word is just as offensive. Athletes of color should be very, very offended when they hear that word. It’s the same thing we’re talking about here. Why is it offensive to us, and not others? Does it matter that there are not as many Native Americans playing the game? It shouldn’t matter. The connotations that word has, any minority group who has had a history of oppression, they should know that it is wrong.”

By no means is there a consensus. We met a man in San Carlos who grew up rooting for Joe Theismann. Others pointed out how the Florida State Seminoles and Central Michigan Chippewas use Native American mascots with the approval and input of the tribes. Some whom we spoke to on the San Carlos and Big Cypress reservations said they had no opinion, and members of about a dozen other tribes or communities we reached out to did not respond or declined to be interviewed.

But team officials and the NFL paint a nearly uniform picture of support for the name, typically citing the results of a 2004 survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, that 90 percent of the 768 self-identified Native Americans polled said the team name “Redskins” did not bother them. (The question: “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?”). That survey is 10 years old. Can the same opinion be applied today?

Neely Tsoodle of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in Oklahoma: “My personal belief is completely different than anyone I know. But I don’t see the need to eliminate Native Americans as mascots. In fact, I don’t want to do that. At all. If we do, then we are erasing another part of our footprint in American culture. … Somewhere along the road it got out of hand, and became a caricature. Maybe it was lack of education, maybe it was society, but it turned into crazy, violent men running around beating drums with red paint on their face, and that’s not OK. But that doesn’t mean we should erase the name completely. We just need to make sure that the nickname is used in a tasteful manner and we are educating people about the meaning behind it. If we get rid of the name completely, we are erasing a part of our identity, and that’s something I know we have fought so hard to maintain.”

Perhaps the most relevant question is not if there is a consensus among the country’s more than 5 million Native Americans—the answer is no—but rather, should a name change depend on one?

 

[RmsLegends]

LOL...........I have to admit Cumby when I saw the title I said hot damn good ole Cumby has opened up the door for a historical chat as he has started a thread on our founder George.....LOL Personally I think the level of offense is dependent upon the person. Slurs and slanders are subjective in my opinion. When we fought the Brits, for our independence they called us Yankees which literally was their slanderous term for a jack off. Yet we have taken that slander and used it as a badge of honor and even gone as far as to name a baseball team the jack offs or Yankees. I also cite for another example the use of the word n..... among the black populous. It has become a slanderous word that is now used in many forms of greeting or ya are one of us and other such social implications. So in my opinion slanderous words have become a grey area and a place hypocrisy can abound and live these days.

They are political driven and motivated as one group or a initiate is allowed to say to another we can use this word because we have decided to take it as a badge of honor and for ya to use this word makes ya a "ist" sexist, racist, homophobic, or whatever negative word can be implied back.

As always as adults we have found the saying sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me to be utterly wrong. As words can and do hurt and do cause a damage that often never heals. As the old proverb says death and life are in the power of the tongue and they love it shall eat the fruit thereof. So words can lift up or words can bring down they truly hold that much power and sway.

So the only guideline we can truly use is what was the intention of the user of the word what was the goal they wanted to accomplish.

I have a teenage nephew and he has a group of black friends and he finds it a honor they allow him to greet them in the same manner as they do by using a certain word. I have expressed to him I find this shameful. Shameful he has allowed others to give him the ok to speak one way or another. Especially since I know he becomes offended when he hears another white person use the word. I have told him I find it most shameful as he is becoming one who seeks the approval of others and when he has it so he can be allowed to speak a way they say he now can. He has traded his own personal honor and right to hold himself to his own standard for the privilege to use a taboo word and I find that most shameful. As already to many folks like that in the world and those who do not trade their own personal honor are to few to be found.

I truly hate these politicized usages such as the Redskins as I am sure there are some who are truly offended. However history has always shown the persecuted can become a worse persecutor. Such as the case of Christians who once were fed to the lions spearheaded the inquisition. how many times do we see a rebel group overthrow a government so they can have the justice they were denied for ages become the same form of corrupt government they overthrew. Man has the distinct ability to feel wronged, but when he has the say and power to see himself as doing no wrong man's ability to be duplicitous is legendary.

In our country if ya felt ya was wronged in your past history ya can feel victorious by filling suite and getting a word barred from general usage by the general populous and then owning that word and giving your expressed consent for it's usage.

While I hold fast that using slanderous words is wrong as the intent behind the word is one that is negative and can just serve no good purpose. I also find it wrong to allow anyone to have the power to give a head nod if a group or individual is allowed to use a word. In a country where we hold it as sacred the right to freedom of speech. I find it shameful that we allow anyone to hold the power and the ability over certain speech. An some seek to feel like they belong so much they seek to please a person to be allowed permission to say a owned word.

I also find the government and law ambiguous at best on this subject. I say so from my own personal experience. In the 90's after Clinton, had passed don't ask don't tell. The service took it upon them to instruct it's members in how the new official policy would effect us and our expected behaviour. So it was at one of these general military instructions to a group of us. That I saw ambiguities and grey areas and no clear line drawn. It was not on the don't ask don't tell policy, but on the sexual harassment part of the general instruction. So I raised my hand come question time and I said yes sir I am a bit confused as the policy seems subjective at best so if I am to understand correctly if a said female is approached by guy one and he says certain things and does certain actions and she feels it was ok cause she liked the way he flirted with her and so no harm no foul. So then the same female has guy two approach her and flirt the same way, but she feels it was harassment from him she has a right to file a complaint and seek redress. An she was able to do so based on the fact that one guy was cute so she liked the attention from him and the other unattractive so she was appalled by him. My answer back was that female is the sole determining factor as to what she finds offensive and who she wants to file a complaint on. So I further asked so her opinion dictates the right or wrong of the situation? An he replied back yes her opinion decides the right or wrong of the situation and is the stance of the service and the government.

So I have always found that is the governments response to such situations as this it is subjective dependent upon the opinion of the one or ones who feel they were victims. So government in these cases has taken the stance of no harm no foul or harm and foul to be determined by the individual or group. Yet in the case of domestic violence government has taken the stance it matters not if ya say no harm no foul we see evidence contrary to what ya say so a foul has been committed and we shall act accordingly.

So here is my problem there is no constant no set guidelines and so ambiguities are allowed to rule the day. Are we not often choosing expediency over what is the direction a soul of a nation should take? While I do believe that all have a right to not be offended on a mass scale by a slanderous term such as the name Redskins. I also believe we should never say ok by doing this the way we shall give ya the right of ownership of this word and only ya and your group can decide who will be allowed to use it and if they don't in accordance with your approval then ya have right to seek recourse.

So that is why I hate these kind of politicized things as right now we are deciding is this behaviour or word unacceptable? An if so we will ban just certain people from being able use it as we will turn around and give ownership of the word to a select group to decided the power of how it can be used in speech.

So hope I made sense and pointed out my biggest concern is how we will react and if we will chose expediency over real debate and decide the true direction the soul of a country should take and hold all accountable to that standard and give no one any special power and have all as equal. As I stated at the front of my post I find offense is determined by the person so my position has been the same as my gov on this circumstance. However by doing such have I myself have been no different have I been ambiguous and subjective as well.

Should no harm no foul be allowed to rule the day and based upon that individuals decision thereof or shall we have one set doctrine whereby all are held accountable by it? So for once I would like to see a honest debate and decision not based on expediency alone but one that will determine a true direction. An like I said I hate these debates as it makes me look at my own duplicity. So again hope I made sense.

 

[Angry Ram]

The name Oklahoma actually comes from the Choctaw language meaning "red people" or "red man". But no one thinks that is offensive. Probably b/c not very many know that.

Personally, I don't think this is offensive, unlike the "N" word which was coined as a demeaning term to black slaves. Plus IMO, when a name is picked to be a team name, especially a professional name recognized nationally that is a huge honor. It's something to be feared and respected.

I also think the word "Injun" is more offensive.

 

[WelfareRam]

LOL...........I have to admit Cumby when I saw the title I said hot damn good ole Cumby has opened up the door for a historical chat as he has started a thread on our founder George.....LOL Personally I think the level of offense is dependent upon the person. Slurs and slanders are subjective in my opinion. When we fought the Brits, for our independence they called us Yankees which literally was their slanderous term for a jack off. Yet we have taken that slander and used it as a badge of honor and even gone as far as to name a baseball team the jack offs or Yankees. I also cite for another example the use of the word n..... among the black populous. It has become a slanderous word that is now used in many forms of greeting or ya are one of us and other such social implications. So in my opinion slanderous words have become a grey area and a place hypocrisy can abound and live these days.

They are political driven and motivated as one group or a initiate is allowed to say to another we can use this word because we have decided to take it as a badge of honor and for ya to use this word makes ya a "ist" sexist, racist, homophobic, or whatever negative word can be implied back.

As always as adults we have found the saying sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me to be utterly wrong. As words can and do hurt and do cause a damage that often never heals. As the old proverb says death and life are in the power of the tongue and they love it shall eat the fruit thereof. So words can lift up or words can bring down they truly hold that much power and sway.

So the only guideline we can truly use is what was the intention of the user of the word what was the goal they wanted to accomplish.

I have a teenage nephew and he has a group of black friends and he finds it a honor they allow him to greet them in the same manner as they do by using a certain word. I have expressed to him I find this shameful. Shameful he has allowed others to give him the ok to speak one way or another. Especially since I know he becomes offended when he hears another white person use the word. I have told him I find it most shameful as he is becoming one who seeks the approval of others and when he has it so he can be allowed to speak a way they say he now can. He has traded his own personal honor and right to hold himself to his own standard for the privilege to use a taboo word and I find that most shameful. As already to many folks like that in the world and those who do not trade their own personal honor are to few to be found.

I truly hate these politicized usages such as the Redskins as I am sure there are some who are truly offended. However history has always shown the persecuted can become a worse persecutor. Such as the case of Christians who once were fed to the lions spearheaded the inquisition. how many times do we see a rebel group overthrow a government so they can have the justice they were denied for ages become the same form of corrupt government they overthrew. Man has the distinct ability to feel wronged, but when he has the say and power to see himself as doing no wrong man's ability to be duplicitous is legendary.

In our country if ya felt ya was wronged in your past history ya can feel victorious by filling suite and getting a word barred from general usage by the general populous and then owning that word and giving your expressed consent for it's usage.

While I hold fast that using slanderous words is wrong as the intent behind the word is one that is negative and can just serve no good purpose. I also find it wrong to allow anyone to have the power to give a head nod if a group or individual is allowed to use a word. In a country where we hold it as sacred the right to freedom of speech. I find it shameful that we allow anyone to hold the power and the ability over certain speech. An some seek to feel like they belong so much they seek to please a person to be allowed permission to say a owned word.

I also find the government and law ambiguous at best on this subject. I say so from my own personal experience. In the 90's after Clinton, had passed don't ask don't tell. The service took it upon them to instruct it's members in how the new official policy would effect us and our expected behaviour. So it was at one of these general military instructions to a group of us. That I saw ambiguities and grey areas and no clear line drawn. It was not on the don't ask don't tell policy, but on the sexual harassment part of the general instruction. So I raised my hand come question time and I said yes sir I am a bit confused as the policy seems subjective at best so if I am to understand correctly if a said female is approached by guy one and he says certain things and does certain actions and she feels it was ok cause she liked the way he flirted with her and so no harm no foul. So then the same female has guy two approach her and flirt the same way, but she feels it was harassment from him she has a right to file a complaint and seek redress. An she was able to do so based on the fact that one guy was cute so she liked the attention from him and the other unattractive so she was appalled by him. My answer back was that female is the sole determining factor as to what she finds offensive and who she wants to file a complaint on. So I further asked so her opinion dictates the right or wrong of the situation? An he replied back yes her opinion decides the right or wrong of the situation and is the stance of the service and the government.

So I have always found that is the governments response to such situations as this it is subjective dependent upon the opinion of the one or ones who feel they were victims. So government in these cases has taken the stance of no harm no foul or harm and foul to be determined by the individual or group. Yet in the case of domestic violence government has taken the stance it matters not if ya say no harm no foul we see evidence contrary to what ya say so a foul has been committed and we shall act accordingly.

So here is my problem there is no constant no set guidelines and so ambiguities are allowed to rule the day. Are we not often choosing expediency over what is the direction a soul of a nation should take? While I do believe that all have a right to not be offended on a mass scale by a slanderous term such as the name Redskins. I also believe we should never say ok by doing this the way we shall give ya the right of ownership of this word and only ya and your group can decide who will be allowed to use it and if they don't in accordance with your approval then ya have right to seek recourse.

So that is why I hate these kind of politicized things as right now we are deciding is this behaviour or word unacceptable? An if so we will ban just certain people from being able use it as we will turn around and give ownership of the word to a select group to decided the power of how it can be used in speech.

So hope I made sense and pointed out my biggest concern is how we will react and if we will chose expediency over real debate and decide the true direction the soul of a country should take and hold all accountable to that standard and give no one any special power and have all as equal. As I stated at the front of my post I find offense is determined by the person so my position has been the same as my gov on this circumstance. However by doing such have I myself have been no different have I been ambiguous and subjective as well.

Should no harm no foul be allowed to rule the day and based upon that individuals decision thereof or shall we have one set doctrine whereby all are held accountable by it? So for once I would like to see a honest debate and decision not based on expediency alone but one that will determine a true direction. An like I said I hate these debates as it makes me look at my own duplicity. So again hope I made sense.

I'm new here to the board and this topic caught my eye, and after I read your statement I'm truly impressed by your opinion regarding the matter. I feel that The Redskin organization has the right to call themselves whatever they like, and usually money is a factor involved in these disputes. Maybe certain people feel they can get a huge settlement out of the controversy that playing the race card has brought to the topic? The moral decline that I've seen in this country regarding such topics is of most alarming nature because people are trying to infringe on peoples rights under the 1st ammendment and using Racial hatred to do so.

I feel that if one is offended, then that one should just go on and not involve him/herself anylonger with the thing that's offensive to them and turn the cheek. I've never seen one person on this planet that wasn't offended by someone els's actions or beliefs in some way. There are so many sports names, area names, Cities etc. named after certain people that did horrible things in their short stay here on earth, and there really isn't any reason to change them especially when they have historical refferences. I mean Mexican General Santa Ana butchered innocent women children and his own people, and they named the Santa Ana winds after him out here in Calif, and i don't see anyone trying to change the name of the Wind!! : )

 

[Ramhusker]

I'm new here to the board and this topic caught my eye, and after I read your statement I'm truly impressed by your opinion regarding the matter. I feel that The Redskin organization has the right to call themselves whatever they like, and usually money is a factor involved in these disputes. Maybe certain people feel they can get a huge settlement out of the controversy that playing the race card has brought to the topic? The moral decline that I've seen in this country regarding such topics is of most alarming nature because people are trying to infringe on peoples rights under the 1st ammendment and using Racial hatred to do so.

I feel that if one is offended, then that one should just go on and not involve him/herself anylonger with the thing that's offensive to them and turn the cheek. I've never seen one person on this planet that wasn't offended by someone els's actions or beliefs in some way. There are so many sports names, area names, Cities etc. named after certain people that did horrible things in their short stay here on earth, and there really isn't any reason to change them especially when they have historical refferences. I mean Mexican General Santa Ana butchered innocent women children and his own people, and they named the Santa Ana winds after him out here in Calif, and i don't see anyone trying to change the name of the Wind!! : )

Agreed. History is often subjective especially in the 21st century.

 

[PhxRam]

I'm new here to the board and this topic caught my eye, and after I read your statement I'm truly impressed by your opinion regarding the matter. I feel that The Redskin organization has the right to call themselves whatever they like, and usually money is a factor involved in these disputes. Maybe certain people feel they can get a huge settlement out of the controversy that playing the race card has brought to the topic? The moral decline that I've seen in this country regarding such topics is of most alarming nature because people are trying to infringe on peoples rights under the 1st ammendment and using Racial hatred to do so.

I feel that if one is offended, then that one should just go on and not involve him/herself anylonger with the thing that's offensive to them and turn the cheek. I've never seen one person on this planet that wasn't offended by someone els's actions or beliefs in some way. There are so many sports names, area names, Cities etc. named after certain people that did horrible things in their short stay here on earth, and there really isn't any reason to change them especially when they have historical refferences. I mean Mexican General Santa Ana butchered innocent women children and his own people, and they named the Santa Ana winds after him out here in Calif, and i don't see anyone trying to change the name of the Wind!! : )

Good post..

How about take some time and introduce yourself in the introduction thread?

http://www.ramsondemand.com/threads/re-introduce-yourself.10291/

 

[RamzFanz]

I would be on the fence if the person who named the team wasn't an ardent racist. That's why I would change it. Not because of it's current connotation as much as its origins.